Allowed

Ram Rathan @ Nouratan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024CRL.P/8954/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in an NDPS case. FSL showed seized substance was mephedrone and methamphetamine, not MDMA; at 22.64 gms it was below commercial quantity. No contraband recovered from petitioner; allegations rested on co-accused statements. Bail granted with stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties (one local), with conditions including address disclosure, no leaving trial court jurisdiction without permission, no tampering, an

Ram Rathan @ Nouratan Vs State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36625 CRL.P No. 8954 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8954 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAM RATHAN @ NOURATAN S/O NENA RAM, AGED 34 YEARS, OCC CARPENTER R/O 5^TH CROSS, NIJALINGAPPA BADAVANE, DAVANAGERE - 577004 PERMANENT ADDRESS: R/O NAYA DARWAJA, NAGAUR RAJASTHAN - 341001

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K.S. VISHWANATHA.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE INSPECTOR, CEN POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE - 577002. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY. R., HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNNS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CR.NO.75/2023 OF CEN POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE FOR OFFENCE U/S.8(c),21(b),29,22(b),27 OF NDPS ACT WHICH IS PENDING

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36625 CRL.P No. 8954 of 2024

¶17

ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS DAVANAGERE.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.75/2023 of CEN Police station, Davanagere, initially registered against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 8(c), 21(c), 27(a) and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').

¶21

Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 10 showing accused Nos.9 and 10 as absconding, for the offence punishable under Section 8(c), 29, 22(b) and 27 of the NDPS Act. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.6 in this case.

¶22

Case of the prosecution is that on 05.11.2023 at about 04:00 p.m., the Police Inspector of CEN crime

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36625 CRL.P No. 8954 of 2024

¶24

police station, Davanagere received a credible information that some unknown persons are in illegal possession of MDMA drugs, near a public road in Sri. Mallikarjunappa Badavane in Davanagere, situated near Mayur Global School. Immediately, he went to the spot along with his staff and panchas, wherein he noticed five persons standing near a car bearing registration No.KA-17/P-9807. On enquiry, they confessed having purchased MDMA drug from the petitioner/accused No.6 for consumption. A plastic cover containing 22.64 gms. of MDMA kept in the dash board of the car was seized.

¶25

According to prosecution accused Nos.6, 7 and 8 are from Rajasthan and accused No.6 i.e., the petitioner herein used to purchase the drug from accused Nos.7 and 8 and sell it for higher price to accused Nos.1 to 5.

¶26

It is further alleged that accused Nos.1 to 5 who were apprehended initially, purchased about 30 gms. of MDMA from the petitioner/accused No.6 for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-. Accused No.1 transferred a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the account of the petitioner through UPI

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:36625 CRL.P No. 8954 of 2024

¶29

from the account of accused No.10. Another sum of

¶30

Rs.90,000/- was paid by cash to accused No.8.

¶31

The learned counsel for petitioner has contended that as per FSL report, the seized drug is not MDMA but it is a mixture of mephedrone and methamphetamine and therefore, drug alleged to have been seized from accused Nos.1 to 5 cannot be said to be commercial quantity. He contended that even otherwise except a mobile phone there is nothing recovered from the possession of the petitioner and allegation that petitioner has purchased drug from accused Nos.7 and 8 and then sold it to accused Nos.1 to 5 is without basis and the said allegations are made only on the voluntary statements of accused persons.

¶32

The learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the petitioner is from the state of Rajasthan and at this stage sufficient materials are collected to connect him with the crime. The petitioner has confessed having sold the drug to accused Nos.1 to 5 and further, there are call record details collected by the

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36625 CRL.P No. 8954 of 2024

¶34

Investigation Officer which reveal that the petitioner and other accused were in contact with each other. He has therefore, sought to dismiss the petition.

¶35

Though, initially prosecution alleged that the seized drug was MDMA, where the commercial quantity is 10 gms, as per FSL report, the sample which was sent for examination responded negative for MDMA. However, the sample responded for the presence of mephedrone and methamphetamine. The commercial quantity of the said drug is 50 gms. The contraband seized in this case is 22.64 gms. Hence, it cannot be said that a commercial quantity of the drug was seized. Be that as it may, there is no recovery of any contraband from the possession of the petitioner. The allegations that he has purchased drug from accused Nos.7 and 8 and then sold it to accused Nos.1 to 5 etc., is a matter to be established in trial. Accused No.1 has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.5055/2024 disposed of on 27.08.2024.

¶36

The petitioner has undertaken to offer local surety. He has no criminal antecedents. Hence, by

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:36625 CRL.P No. 8954 of 2024

¶39

imposing stringent conditions, he can be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) Petition is allowed .

¶42

ii) Petitioner/accused No.6 in Crime No.75/2023 of

¶43

CEN Crime police station, Davanagere shall be enlarged on

¶44

bail subject to following conditions.

¶45

a) He shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties for the likesum, out of which one shall be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶46

b) He shall furnish his residential address and contact number and shall inform the Investigation Officer/Court, if there is change in the address/contact number.

¶47

c) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the learned session Judge.

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:36625 CRL.P No. 8954 of 2024

¶49

d) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶50

e) He shall appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail.

¶51

f) He shall not indulge in criminal activities.

¶52

Violation of the conditions shall result in cancellation of bail.

¶53

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶54

LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Ram Rathan @ Nouratan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Rathan @ Nouratan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fathima Alis Rathimathul Fasia Vs the State of Karnataka

Puneeth T S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rudrappa Vs State of Karnataka

Madhu K Vs State by Police Sub Inspector

Shri Laxmikant S/O Gunavant Yelari Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahadeva Vs Government of Karnataka